ALBANY — The front of the election ballot Tuesday will feature an array of local races. And for voters who flip to the back of the ballot, six opportunities to change the New York Constitution await them.

While much of the focus prior to Election Day remains on the candidates, it’s the proposed amendments that will be on every New Yorker’s ballot.

The highest-profile amendment is the first one listed. Proposal No. 1 would allow up to seven casinos in the state, though a separate law enacted by the state Legislature this year would limit the first four to the Catskills, Southern Tier and Capital Region.

Other proposals would lift the mandatory retirement age for certain state judges to 80, authorize land swaps in the Adirondacks, extend an exemption for local sewer debts and correct an issue with civil-service exams for disabled veterans.

In at least 58 of the state’s 62 counties, the proposals will be printed on the back of the ballot. Yet few voters will find their way there, said Gerald Benjamin, a constitutional scholar and dean of SUNY New Paltz’s Center for Research, Regional Education & Outreach.

In 2003, 3 million New Yorkers cast a ballot on Election Day, but just 1.6 million of them voted on a proposal to extend an exemption for local debt from sewer construction, which is up for another 10-year extension this year. Based on his research, Benjamin estimates anywhere from 1.6 million to 3 million people will vote on the ballot proposals this year, a fraction of the 11.5 million registered voters statewide.

“Guys like me say, ‘Trust the people. Let’s put out a constitution that makes sense,’ ” Benjamin said. “And yet, if the people don’t come out and vote, it’s kind of scary. Who are you trusting?”

Here’s a look at this year’s proposals:

Proposal No. 1

The first referendum has garnered by far the most attention: a proposal to allow up to seven private, non-Indian casinos in New York.

The language of the referendum doesn’t stop there. It touts the potential for “promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated.” The wording, which the state Board of Elections OK’d, has been criticized by casino opponents and good-government groups, who say it was concocted to garner “yes” votes. It was also the subject of an unsuccessful lawsuit.

(Page 2 of 4)

The amendment is backed by a group called New York Jobs Now, a coalition of racetrack casino owners, business groups and labor organizations who have raised more than $3 million to fund direct mail and ads.

The casino expansion has the potential to increase tax dollars for the state, with Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s budget office projecting $430 million in annual increased revenue, largely from a tax on slot machines. That money would be split among the state, local governments and the education system.

The budget office’s estimate, however, includes revenue from three new pacts with Native American tribes.

Opposition has come from conservative groups and think tanks along with some Democratic lawmakers, who say casino gambling feasts on the poor and isn’t sustainable for economic development.

“The main reasons casinos don’t contribute to economic growth is they don’t produce anything,” Stephen Shafer, chairperson of the Coalition Against Gambling in New York, said at a forum. “The only thing that happens in casinos is people lose their money.”

Proposal No. 2

Workers take the state’s Civil Service exam when they’re hoping to break into state employment or are seeking a promotion.

Currently, the state constitution gives veterans an extra five points on the exam for an original appointment, while disabled veterans get 10 points. For promotions, a veteran gets 2 1/2 points and a disabled vet gets five. But a veteran can claim extra credit only once, which has prevented certain service members who weren’t classified as disabled until after they claimed credit from receiving the full 10 points.

This proposed amendment would change that. It has support from the state Civil Service Employees Association and the state’s Veterans of Foreign Wars, while no one has lined up to oppose it, the League of Women Voters said.

“Basically what it does is remove a loophole in the Civil Service Law that penalizes disabled veterans who are largely in this position because there’s very often a lag in how long it takes to be designated as disabled,” said Stephen Madarasz, a CSEA spokesman.

(Page 3 of 4)

Proposal No. 3

Since 1963, New York voters have been asked every 10 years to let counties and local governments borrow money for sewage-system repairs and construction without having it count against their constitutional debt limit. This year, the extension will be put to a vote for the sixth time.

In 2008, the state estimated New York’s wastewater infrastructure would need $36.2 billion in repairs, replacements and updates over the next 20 years.

“It’s particularly important for smaller local governments, where a single sewer-improvement project without this exclusion would put them right up against the constitutional debt limit,” said Peter Baynes, executive director of the state Conference of Mayors.

The extension is opposed by the state Conservative Party, which said it isn’t right to exempt any debt from the limit.

Proposals Nos. 4 and 5

The fourth and fifth proposals involve land in the Adirondack Forest Preserve in northern New York, which is protected by the constitution.

Proposal No. 4 would offer a settlement to land disputes that have carried on for more than 100 years in an area of Hamilton County known as Township 40. In part due to poor record-keeping and surveying in the mid- to late 1800s, both the state and private homeowners and entities have laid claim to 216 parcels totaling 1,034 acres around Raquette Lake.

The competing claims have played out in courts with no real resolution. The proposed settlement lets the private entities opt in at a cost of $2,000 plus the assessed value of their parcel in exchange for the state dropping its claim, while also having the option of giving some of their land to the forest preserve to lessen their costs.

Proposal No. 5 would let the state transfer 200 acres to NYCO Minerals, a company that mines a mineral called wollastonite, which is found in car brakes, paints and certain plastics. In exchange, the company would give the state at least the same amount of land, with a minimum value of $1 million, to enter into the forest preserve. When NYCO finishes mining the 200 acres, it would be required to restore the land and transfer it back to the state.

(Page 4 of 4)

The company’s current mine in Essex County has about two years of wollastonite left, spokesman John Brodt said. Approving the amendment would let the company continue mining and preserve jobs in the region for another decade, he said.

The proposal is opposed by some major environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club’s Atlantic Chapter, who say it runs counter to the constitution’s intent to keep the Adirondacks “forever wild.”

Proposal No. 6

The final proposal would raise the mandatory retirement age for certain state judges. If approved, state Supreme Court justices could continue serving until 80 if they are certified by an independent health professional every two years after they turn 70. Currently, those judges can serve until 76 if they get a certification.

For the state’s highest court — the Court of Appeals — judges would be able to finish out their 14-year term if it extends past their 70th birthday. But they wouldn’t be able to serve past 80.

As it stands, Court of Appeals judges must retire at 70.

“Judges get to the bench later in life. They hit their peak later in life,” said current Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, who is among the amendment’s major boosters. “It is so counterproductive to make judges at the height of their powers leave the bench and have in effect a constitutional assumption of senility.”

Lippman, 68, could stand to benefit from the amendment should it pass. If not, he would be forced to retire in 2015.

The proposal is opposed by Citizens Union, a good-government group based in New York, which questioned why it doesn’t apply to all state judges.

“Citizens Union believes there is no principled reason for raising the retirement age for only two groups of judges — judges of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court — and not having the same apply to the majority of the state’s judges,” the group wrote.